PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
I don't enjoy arguing actually. But here's something for you to consider: when you read an idea on this site, there are different ways to respond to its content:Dobro, why do you like the argue so much?
Mmm, on this board, it's not common practice to back up your view with academic citations. Not only that, but I wasn't 'spouting off opinions to be contrary'. I was drawing on my own experience of two Asian cultures I know of to back up my idea that Asians tend to put a very positive value on family, and that they tend not to see family as dysfunctional. I've studied Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, and in that branch of Buddhism they talk a lot about 'mother sentient beings', the idea being that you should deal compassionately and harmlessly with every lifeform you meet in your life because at some point in the past, every sentient being in the universe has been your own mother in a previous lifetime. (This idea often doesn't go down very well with the western students in the class because westerners often have negative associations with their mothers. This puzzles and amazes some of the Tibetan teachers when they first encounter it. They don't get it. Everybody just l-o-v-e-s their mother, they think.) As for the example of the Philippinos I gave, that comes out of dozens and dozens of interviews I've conducted with Philippinos, and based on that, I know that Philippinos put a VERY high value on family - it's right up there next to God for them.Furthermore, when you make an argument, it's good practice to back up your claims with some solid facts and research, rather than just spouting off opinions to be contrary.
No, I didn't say that family dysfunctionality was absent from ancient civilizations, I said that the concept of it was largely absent from Hex 37. I did point out, however, that deviation from the ideal family was imaged in 37.3. Learn to read, petrosianii.On your point about the concept of dysfunctional family not existing in ancient civilizations...
This is the only quote that has anything much to do with what we were talking about, and it's interesting, cuz it shows clearly that ancient China knew very well about dysfunctionality in families. (I wonder if their idea of dysfunctionality was the same as ours, though? I wonder if Confucius might have seen 'dysfunctionality' in children who were more independent and less 'filial' than the traditional standard?) And yet despite Confucius' observation, it is still true that Chinese culture, ancient and modern, puts a huge positive value on family, and if you don't take that into account when you use Hex 37, then I think you're not getting full value out of its image and what it's saying to you."Confucius, living in a time of failed families, said that virtue derives from the [setting in order of proper family roles]..."
If you follow this line of thinking, then only one hexagram in the entire Yi is correct - 63 - and all of the others are 'not quite correct'. Is this what you think? Or does the 'not quite correct' idea only strike you in relation to 37?One thing I noticed recently about the lines of #37 is that they are "almost" correct, but not quite. Replace one yan line with a yin and you have #63, Already Fording. This seems curious to me... Family is "not quite correct."
Well, no, not really. In 37, the fifth line is the ruler. (Check Wilhelm/Baynes - look, I'm citing my sources!) That's why the king is imaged in line 5 rather than line 6. In fact, if mum is imaged anywhere in 37, it's in line 3, and in the main text. Dad doesn't seem to get a look in, unless you see him as the family 'king' in line 5.And which line is "incorrect?": The top line - the line of authority. And who are the authorities in the family: Mum & Dad, of course!
I don't think Hex 37 paints a picture of a dysfunctional family, but I'll say again that line 37.3 clearly images 'something not correct' as one possible variation on family dynamics. But I do agree with you that all families (well, not all, but almost all) possess some degree of dysfunctionality. And it's not just the teenagers that perceive this, but adult children of dysfunctional families as well. Did you know that one of the highest incidences of depression is among people in their 20's? Apparently, one reason for this is cuz when you're a kid or a teen growing up in a dysfunctional family, you're too busy simply surviving, and you don't have time to deal with the psychological issues involved, but when you hit your twenties your system knows it's time to deal with unfinished business and wham! you get hit with depression (which is nature's way of letting you know there is something in you that needs to be addressed). And in my life, the dysfunctionality in my own family became more evident the older I got. The teen years were just a glimpse lol.In short, the I Ching confirms what teenagers all implicit know: that all families possess at least some degree of dysfunctionality.
Well, you don't have to live up to it, because it isn't impossibly noble at all, it's just positive. And if your family is somewhere on the dysfunctional scale (hey, welcome to the club), then it ain't the end of the world, it's a backhand blessing - you'll be working harder on yourself than the complacent people who come from balanced, loving families (why do work on yourself if you feel you're just peachy and really okay already?).Whew! I was just beginning to worry that I'd never live up the the Ching's impossibly noble familial standards!
I like that and also agrees with what Dobro said before about Asian families, with whom I also agree. I also agree with the precept of "dysfunctional families" being a Western concept and a quite modern at that too. I suppose there was a need to put a name to what was perceived as less than "ideal" for a family interaction, whatever the measure of that "ideal" is.I don't think this necessarily implies that the Family - actually the hexagram is called "jiaren" meaning "family people" or "family members", which may not mean exactly "family" as a unit but more what we imply when we speak individually of "relatives" or "relations" - is a flawed institution. Quite the contrary, in China and other Asian cultures, the family is the foundation of society, the indispensible unit of human civilization. Practically speaking, I think very few traditional Asians would have viewed their extended family as dysfunctional, no matter how difficult or demanding or eccentric its individual members might be. This would be like us calling some institution we believe in - the business corporation or modern political party or board-of-directors model or democratically-elected local government or sports team - as inherently dysfunctional. Some specific examples may operate poorly, but this does not call the whole nature of the institution into question.
One of the best descriptions of a logical approach to the Yi I've read in eleven words... :bows:The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.
Yes, even if she's not Jewish to begin with, after a few years of axe-wielding, she becomes so."Forget it, this line says that you will end up with a jewish mother in law! "
I think Martin's interpretation definitely proves at least one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel ended up in China. How else explain such a clear reference to Jewish mamas?"Dear friends, I asked the Yi if I should marry him and received 37.6>63. What do you think?"
"Forget it, this line says that you will end up with a jewish mother in law! "
you're right, hilary, the fifth line is authority...my mistake. And the sixth is insight, wisdom, or revelation, more properly...Is the sixth line the 'authority' position? I'd think of that as line 5. Line 6 might be more the position for grandparents. The ideal expressed in hexagram 37 is a space where everyone finds their own place and can be themselves within that role. (I think.) Ron Masa tells an interesting story of a reading he used to supplement therapy with a woman who came from a thoroughly messed-up family, but who was inclined to idealise it. He was horrified when Yi came up with 37.5, thinking this would just support her delusion. Instead, it was the catalyst that brought her to realise that her father hadn't been anything like that. Anyway... while I don't see any 'incorrectness' in 37, it does contain the idea of incompletion and flux in its nuclear hexagram. And some historian please correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe that Chinese homes were for the extended family, with internal walls moved around to re-define the space as needed.
Oh really?there are no abstract principles in Yi divination, only individual concrete applications. The Yi asks us to reason by analogy, not by deduction.
On the first point. Just b/c a concept is "western" and/or "modern" does not mean:I also agree with the precept of "dysfunctional families" being a Western concept and a quite modern at that too. I suppose there was a need to put a name to what was perceived as less than "ideal" for a family interaction, whatever the measure of that "ideal" is.
One of the best descriptions of a logical approach to the Yi I've read in eleven words... :bows:
...then proceeded into perhaps the single longest diatribe i've seen to present an argument of how you don't like arguing. hmm. You've just proven my point.I don't enjoy arguing actually....
It wasn't a diatribe. Here's the American Heritage Dictionary's defintion:...then proceeded into perhaps the single longest diatribe i've seen to present an argument of how you don't like arguing. hmm. You've just proven my point.
You've read some of my posts perhaps, but if you haven't seen me agree with somebody once, then you haven't read many of my posts.btw, I've watched your posts since I've been a member of this forum, and not once have I seen you just agree with someone else's ideas - or if you do, you then later pick some part of it apart.
Did I say they didn't have a "conceptual vocabulary" for it? One only has to read Mencius and Confucius to find said vocabulary... What I meant to say, as apparently wasn't clear, is that our modern, western concept of "dysfunctional," as applied to "families" has no real parallel in the Eastern "functionality" of families, even in our present. The family dynamics are just plain different.This is just a plain non-sequitur. It doesn't follow, has no justification in actual academic research; and, if you think about, actually tacitly insults the yi philosophers by saying that they didn't have the conceptual vocabulary with which to speak about the most universal human experiences.
On the second point. If Lindsay's description of the yi was, in fact, "logical", then it also was deductive in nature; logic is not analogous reasoning; it is deductive reasoning, the very kind of reasoning Lindsay claims we're really not supposed to rely on when interpreting the Ching.
The seventh hexagram of a set is the negative horizontal pole or x-axis extreme of this set about socially regulated and organized familial structure. This is in contrast to hexagram 38 which is the positive pole or other x-axis extreme--the two younger sisters caught in the house because of the rain fighting with each other since they are bored and the parents and elder siblings are otherwise engaged. 37-family is the static framework of family structure, in contrast to 38 which is the dynamics of children screaming or living family interaction.
Hi Hilary,Welcome to the field.
Somehow I'd missed your work on the sequence, Frank. I'm definitely going to study it - having noticed assorted patterns in 'decades' myself. Hm - have you heard of Scott Davies' work on this? And looked at Danny van den Berghe's 'landscape' in the sequence?
Yeah, right lol. But setting aside for the moment what sounds like sarcasm or you taking the moral high ground or irritating sexism, I'd like to look at what you said for a minute. In this thread, there's been a concern with what's true, and there's also been a clash of egos, for sure. So, do you see a clash of egos as always on the animal level (in the case of males, testosterone-driven and concerned with dominance; in the case of females, you tell me...?) I mean, if the ego gets involved, if a debate degenerates into a contest, is it *always* animalistic? Isn't it sometimes purely psychological? I'm not suggesting, I'm asking. I want to know. And you seem to see a pattern.Sometimes I wonder if some people wouldn't be better off just affixing a pair of stag antlers, and bashing it out in a field somewhere...
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).